Ed: Gee Sandy, had you attended SBTS rather than SEBTS, pre Mohler that would be a compliment Even some of the Professors who hung on at Southern into the Mohler administration where quite dynamic. Even some that he pirated from some strong evangelical institutions where dynamic. And really, I was privileged to become familiar with a few former SWBTS professors who where great teachers. William Hendricks leads that list.

I may be forced to read Worthen to discover what you meant by what sounded to me like a slur. If by "She writes like a professor would lecture", you meant a compliment, please accept my apology. Thus far I have not read her, because thus far Fox has not presented, what to me would be a compelling reason to do so.

Personally I would rather read a book on this subject by Neil Heath or even William Thornton than one who was born only 5 years before the takeover was essentially complete. In fact a book by the two of them comparing and contrasting experiences related to the controversy could be interesting. How about it guys?

I would like to do the forward but I think perhaps David Flick has a more balanced appreciation of those two.

Ed Pettibone wrote:Personally I would rather read a book on this subject by Neil Heath or even William Thornton than one who was born only 5 years before the the before the takeover was essentially complete. In fact a book by the two of them comparing and contrasting experiences related to the controversy could be interesting. How about it guys?

I would like to do the forward but I think perhaps David Flick has a more balanced appreciation of those two.

I have a books worth of witty and insightful comments here over the years...and they have all been available for free.

I would rather read a book on this subject by Neil Heath or even William Thornton than one who was born only 5 years before the the before the takeover was essentially complete. In fact a book by the two of them comparing and contrasting experiences related to the controversy could be interesting.

William replied "I have a books worth of witty and insightful comments here over the years...and they have all been available for free.

And Neil said " I appreciate the suggestion, Ed, but I'm not sure I could do the subject justice, and there are a good many excellent ones out there already that far exceed my ability to write."

Neil I would say your story is as valid as that of anyone else who "was there", and you live with in a short drive of dozens of folk who I believe would be glad to read and verify or adjust your work before it became public.

To William Indeed much of what you have presented on these boards has been been characterized by quick and inventive verbal humor. with an emphasis on inventive. However I suggested you because I view you as a thinking conservative who also "was there" and are not beholden to those ultra conservatives who I believe reshaped the SBC for their own gain.

I would rather read a book on this subject by Neil Heath or even William Thornton than one who was born only 5 years before the the before the takeover was essentially complete. In fact a book by the two of them comparing and contrasting experiences related to the controversy could be interesting.

William replied "I have a books worth of witty and insightful comments here over the years...and they have all been available for free.

And Neil said " I appreciate the suggestion, Ed, but I'm not sure I could do the subject justice, and there are a good many excellent ones out there already that far exceed my ability to write."

Neil I would say your story is as valid as that of anyone else who "was there", and you live with in a short drive of dozens of folk who I believe would be glad to read and verify or adjust your work before it became public.

To William Indeed much of what you have presented on these boards has been been characterized by quick and inventive verbal humor. with an emphasis on inventive. However I suggested you because I view you as a thinking conservative who also "was there" and are not beholden to those ultra conservatives who I believe reshaped the SBC for their own gain.

Ed Pettibone wrote:Sandy says of Worthen " She writes like a professor would lecture."

Ed: Gee Sandy, had you attended SBTS rather than SEBTS, pre Mohler that would be a compliment Even some of the Professors who hung on at Southern into the Mohler administration where quite dynamic. Even some that he pirated from some strong evangelical institutions where dynamic. And really, I was privileged to become familiar with a few former SWBTS professors who where great teachers. William Hendricks leads that list.

I may be forced to read Worthen to discover what you meant by what sounded to me like a slur. If by "She writes like a professor would lecture", you meant a compliment, please accept my apology. Thus far I have not read her, because thus far Fox has not presented, what to me would be a compelling reason to do so.

Personally I would rather read a book on this subject by Neil Heath or even William Thornton than one who was born only 5 years before the takeover was essentially complete. In fact a book by the two of them comparing and contrasting experiences related to the controversy could be interesting. How about it guys?

I would like to do the forward but I think perhaps David Flick has a more balanced appreciation of those two.

It's not a dynamic style. It's turgid and boring, and is basically aimed at an audience already pre-disposed to the perspective from which she writes. There's not a whole lot there that deals specifically with the SBC. Stephen touts it as the next great work on the controversy, but its more about Evangelical Christianity in general, than it is about Southern Baptists. I did find it amusing that Worthen apparently doesn't consider the conservative resurgence as a "takeover" but sees it pretty much for what it was, a movement replacing leadership with those who were more in step theologically and socially with the people in the pews than the previous leaders had been. Her research indicates that the SBC was conservative Evangelical at its core, overwhelmingly so, and had been influenced by conservative Evangelicals outside the denomination itself. She makes reference to Francis Schaeffer, which of course, pushed Stephen's button and got him on that theme.

I may get around to reading Worthen some day, I am a bit curious as to what she considers to have been "Core of the SBC".

But if her style is indeed "turgid and boring", I doubt I would Finnish it. Of the many "professors" that I have had in 4 Southern Baptist owned or affiliated institutions of Higher education from 1956 to 1992, and four state operated universities in three states, plus one private ultra conservative nondenominational Bible college. I can think of only one professor who fits your description of Worthen's writing. That was a Biology professor at Howard (now Samford) in the spring of 57.

Ed: You are wrong Stephen I have read Balmers 4-15 review of Worthen's effort but still not in any hurry to read it for myself. And Steve I have heard and herd of 1 man bands but I have yet to see a 1 man circus Idiot or otherwise. But thanks for introducing me to the term.

Well, Ed, if another book rehashing the SBC controversy is on your list, this isn't it, because it doesn't really do that. It isn't easy reading, but the biggest benefit from it for me was the ability to see, through the perspective of a relative outsider who is basically writing an academic research analysis of American Evangelical conservatives. It's always nice to know what others are thinking.

I hope Lamar and KeithE and Neil, even Thornton read Worthen soon as Sandy will never take my word. Either Sandy's reading comprehension is much worse than any of us ever imagined, or he is so hell bent on spinning Worthen into saying something she clearly does not endorse, even concede.

Here is a quote by the "most helpful reviewer" of the book that I heartily agree with.

The centerpiece of this book is the Dr. Worthens assertion that there is a fundamental crisis of authority in Evangelicalism- that we all appeal to the Bible as the document from which we derive our authority, but in reality, our uniting authority is a small set of disagreements that we are eternally in dialogue around. She reveals the fact that the Bible is not a book of Systematic Theology and therefore our lack of consensus of interpretation proves that the Scriptures do not speak a simple, single meaning and therefore simply cannot be our central authority.

Thus a 20th century developed tradition (slowly evolving) is really the authority that conservative evangelicals employ.

Among the books I’m reading now (I try to have 1 religious, 1 political, 1 science book going all the time) is Making Sense out of the Bible by Adam Hamilton ($11.04 Kindle) is even higher rated (25 5 stars, 2 4 stars and 0 3,2,1 stars). It is simple, and straightforwardly honest. For religious books after that I have planned to read Integral Spirituality by Ken Wilber at my son’s insistence.

So, Stephen, it might be awhile before I get around to Worthen’s book but it sounds good.

Informed by Data.Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.

The "lack of consensus" on interpretation of scripture among Evangelicals is the most oft cited "proof" for liberals like Worthen against the authority of scripture. The only real problem with that contention, though, is that the lack of consensus is really small and insignificant, and in fact, other than for those on the left, is more unifying than it is divisive. On the essentials, particularly the inerrancy of scripture, there's remarkable consensus. That's what Worthen fails to understand.

Sandy wrote:The "lack of consensus" on interpretation of scripture among Evangelicals is the most oft cited "proof" for liberals like Worthen against the authority of scripture. The only real problem with that contention, though, is that the lack of consensus is really small and insignificant, and in fact, other than for those on the left, is more unifying than it is divisive. On the essentials, particularly the inerrancy of scripture, there's remarkable consensus. That's what Worthen fails to understand.

The stridency of belief in inerrancy truly is the hallmark of fundamentalism and evangelicalism. Yet when there can be such a divide in the canon of scripture, text of scripture, hermeneutics, soteriology, eschatology, theories of atonement, ethical norms (Law vs Love), judgmentalism, forgiveness, emotionalism/stoicism among believers in “biblical inerrancy”, I wonder if belief in inerrancy really means that much. As such inerrancy is one of the “small set of disagreements”.

And inerrancy is such a weak leg to stand on - easily broken to those who are not taught (make that brainwashed) to guard against questioning it. And no one really believes all of it. Be honest.

I stand on the intricacy of creation, the reality of conscience, the person of Christ (including His resurrection), and more than all else the experience of support/rightness before God when I "trust and obey" my conscience and/or follow Jesus’s example.

Informed by Data.Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.

I contend that the "divide" is much softer and less significant than critics of evangelicalism tend to want to make it. It is the standard argument of critics, as I've said before, so they keep hammering away at it. There's an appearance of a divide, mainly because most evangelicals are congregational, and the churches are independent and autonomous, including a large number of non-denominational congregations. In most Mainline denominations, doctrine is a matter of what the clergy says it is, and that's the official line. People can, and do, have their own interpretations, but these don't affect the perspective of the church or group because it is what the clergy says that evaluates the matter. Since most critics of evangelicalism come from liberal mainline churches, they are unable to distinguish between the church's doctrinal covenant, and individual interpretations of it. Since individuals have a much greater voice in influencing and directing a congregational church, the appearance to someone like Worthen is that there is a divide, and a scattered appearance when it comes to doctrinal unity. But if you look at the interpretations arrived at through congregational consensus, there's less difference than in Mainline churches with forced agreement. Worthen never gets that, nor does she convey an understanding, which could only come from experience, of the role that the Holy Spirit plays in Christian unity, especially among Evangelicals.

Ed: Keith when you say of Worthen's book " It reviews are uncommonly high 13 out of 17 are 5 stars with no 1 stars."

I would caution dependence on such reviews. When I see that sort of imbalance I have a suspicion that the deck has been stacked.

And Sandy when you write " Since most critics of evangelicalism come from liberal mainline churches,...",can you provide evidence to support such a statement? I believe that most criticism of Evangelicalism is misdirected and in large part comes from liberals. However I do not see it as coming primarily from Mainline churches. I am convinced that more of what I see comes from, liberal one time Evangelical dropouts of the "5th estate", who may or may not now have any true religious affiliation. And often if they have a current religious affiliation, it is a to provide them an appearance of a valid basis for their biases. And no I can not support that statement I need to research the idea, as it only came to me as I began to explain what I find wrong with your claim that "most" anti evangelicalism come from "Liberal Mainline Churches".

Take the divide among evangelicals seriously as does NT Wright's great friend Will Willimon.

Fox News studies it day and night like the Devil who walked the earth trying to find who he could devour. With Sandy's encouragement, he found Job.

It is ridiculous in the face of Furman, Samford, Baylor etc fleeing Mohlerism and the rupture the likes of Francis Schaeffer stoked and helped fissure; it is ridiculous to dismiss all of this with such cavalier abandon as Sandy does.

Again as well spoken as he is, if reading Worthen were a test of his reading comprehension, he fails miserably. From the fellow at Baylor, to Balmer, to Mark Noll and Darren Dochuk and hopefully soon to Bruce Gourley and Lamar Wadsworth the consensus will add even more heft to the obvious conclusion Sandy is perverting the clear value of Worthen's work including her analysis of Francis Schaeffer.

I'd be more interested to hear what Mohler has to say about Worthen's book, or someone like Jeff Iorg or Danny Akin than Randall Balmer, or Mark Noll. First of all, it would be a fair evaluation, not a sales pitch like most of what you've posted, and second, it would be interesting to see if they think its worth the paper its printed on to read it, if for no other reason, for its critical value, if it has any.

Nothing else really holds significance here, Stephen. The SBC is more than a generation removed from its leadership change, and has sustained and affirmed the direction taken by the conservative resurgence repeatedly and overwhelmingly. You're down there in the Heart O' Dixie, why not take a drive through the countryside, visit some SBC pastors and churches, and see how many you find who aren't in agreement with the direction the SBC headed in 1979.

Get yourself a copy of one of Francis Schaeffer's more recent works, take your copy of Molly's Apostles of Reason, to take with you, set on the desk when you talk to one of the pastors, and see which one he trusts more.

The characterization of Conservative Evangelicals as "anti-intellectual" is an intentional misnomer. It's the result of attempting to blend them into the same mix as "fundamentalists." There are Baptist fundamentalists, of the Jack Hyles-Bob Jones-Lee Roberson brand, but they are pretty much all of the independent, fundamental variety. That's usually the first mistake made in analyzing the SBC. Within the convention, there are a few churches like that, but not many. The other mistake is equating anti-intellectualism with anti-humanism. It's arrogant and patronizing to think that not holding "popular" humanist perspectives is a sign of a lack of intellectual pursuit. Evangelicals attend, get good grades, and graduate from some of the most prestigious, highly respected academic ivory towers in the country. Look at the faculty lists of the SBC seminaries. I guess it irks some pseudo-intellectual critics that they can't indoctrinate everyone.

Last edited by Sandy on Fri Apr 25, 2014 5:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Sandy wrote:I'd be more interested to hear what Mohler has to say about Worthen's book, or someone like Jeff Iorg or Danny Akin than Randall Balmer, or Mark Noll. First of all, it would be a fair evaluation, not a sales pitch like most of what you've posted, and second, it would be interesting to see if they think its worth the paper its printed on to read it, if for no other reason, for its critical value, if it has any.

Ed: Sandy upon what do you base your opinion that Akin or Mohler would be fair, more so than the folk SF has suggested? And why you place some value in what either Akin or Mohler have to say about it, when you are not sure that their opinions have any critical value?

Sandy wrote:I'd be more interested to hear what Mohler has to say about Worthen's book, or someone like Jeff Iorg or Danny Akin than Randall Balmer, or Mark Noll. First of all, it would be a fair evaluation, not a sales pitch like most of what you've posted, and second, it would be interesting to see if they think its worth the paper its printed on to read it, if for no other reason, for its critical value, if it has any.

Ed: Sandy upon what do you base your opinion that Akin or Mohler would be fair, more so than the folk SF has suggested? And why you place some value in what either Akin or Mohler have to say about it, when you are not sure that their opinions have any critical value?

I mean the critical value of the Worthen book, not Mohler or Akin. I believe they would render an opinion, which is all that a book review is, that would come from an informed perspective. They'd read the book, and analyze it from their perspective. They'd be able to easily point out where Worthen's research or conclusions were flawed, along with the straw men.

Sandy wrote:I contend that the "divide" is much softer and less significant than critics of evangelicalism tend to want to make it. It is the standard argument of critics, as I've said before, so they keep hammering away at it. There's an appearance of a divide, mainly because most evangelicals are congregational, and the churches are independent and autonomous, including a large number of non-denominational congregations. In most Mainline denominations, doctrine is a matter of what the clergy says it is, and that's the official line. People can, and do, have their own interpretations, but these don't affect the perspective of the church or group because it is what the clergy says that evaluates the matter. Since most critics of evangelicalism come from liberal mainline churches, they are unable to distinguish between the church's doctrinal covenant, and individual interpretations of it. Since individuals have a much greater voice in influencing and directing a congregational church, the appearance to someone like Worthen is that there is a divide, and a scattered appearance when it comes to doctrinal unity. But if you look at the interpretations arrived at through congregational consensus, there's less difference than in Mainline churches with forced agreement. Worthen never gets that, nor does she convey an understanding, which could only come from experience, of the role that the Holy Spirit plays in Christian unity, especially among Evangelicals.

I guess I’m the one who first used the word “divide” in evangelicalism. Perhaps “differences" in theology would have been better. Hidden under that tent is several important theological differences (e.g. Patterson's Arminianism vs Mohler's Calvinism). That speaks to the lack of effective theological authority among those that buy into inerrancy.

Given the underlined above, I guess that means you have read Worthen's book?? I haven't, but may at some point despite Ed's "caution".

Sandy: Get yourself a copy of one of Francis Schaeffer's more recent works, take your copy of Molly's Apostles of Reason, to take with you, set on the desk when you talk to one of the pastors, and see which one he trusts more.

Schaeffer died in 1984 so there is not much "recent work".

Personally, I was not impressed with Schaeffer when I read Escape from Reason circa 1971 and then The God Who is There circa 1980. Lotta of talk about "leaps of faith" among those he disagreed with and neery a mention of his leap of faith in accepting inerrancy. But I never read How Then Shall we Live which I guess is his "more recent work" that purports to talk about western culture in 20th century possibly paralleling Worthen's book. Is that what you had in mind? If not what? - no promises that I read any of them though.

Yes, I read Worthen's book. I believe her term is "crisis" and she attempts to lay the groundwork, over the idea that the differences of interpretation of scripture are significant enough to indicate division. Actually, some of her reviewers characterize her perspective as seeing a "civil war" among Evangelicals. Wishful thinking, I believe.

Sandy wrote:I'd be more interested to hear what Mohler has to say about Worthen's book, or someone like Jeff Iorg or Danny Akin than Randall Balmer, or Mark Noll. First of all, it would be a fair evaluation, not a sales pitch like most of what you've posted, and second, it would be interesting to see if they think its worth the paper its printed on to read it, if for no other reason, for its critical value, if it has any.

Ed: Sandy upon what do you base your opinion that Akin or Mohler would be fair, more so than the folk SF has suggested? And why you place some value in what either Akin or Mohler have to say about it, when you are not sure that their opinions have any critical value?

I mean the critical value of the Worthen book, not Mohler or Akin. I believe they would render an opinion, which is all that a book review is, that would come from an informed perspective. They'd read the book, and analyze it from their perspective. They'd be able to easily point out where Worthen's research or conclusions were flawed, along with the straw men.

Ed: You mean assuming that they found her research or conclusions are flawed and offered straw men?

Russ Moore is pieced together from mush and if you scratch Mohler deep enough you find D James Kennedy not to mention your guri Schaeffer.

That's not to say an SBC Fundy can't occasionally stumble on some worthwhile nugget of insight or turn a phrase.

Noll, Balmer, Marsh, Dochuk, they all come out of strong, you could almost say fundamentalist roots, yet, like Marney they pilgrimmed forth.

Remind me again by name that great group of fundy takeover minds that are moving the church and society forward. As for me I like what the pantheon of my friend Balmer in the Time Mag cover story last week on Barbara Brown Taylor